Just for completeness:

the prefix a- (an-) comes from Greek and means not, or without, and is used with other words for negation of a concept ie:

amoral = without morals
atom = not cut(able)
anerobic = without air
anaesthetic = without feeling
atheist = without god
anarchy = without rule
achromatic = without color

IMHO I see nothing wrong with the term atheist, as it describes exactly what it needs to. Trying to disguise it is just the currently polular political correctness raising its ugly head. It’s the same spiel as the creationists trying to disguise ‘creationism’ as ‘intelligent design’ - a game of semantics that can leave you looking stupider than before.

That aside, we could consider a name like ‘Laplacians’ after Pierre-Simon Laplace “Je n’avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là” - I have no need of that hypothesis. (His reply when he was asked by Napolean why God didn’t appear in his book celestial mechanics)

The contention of some Christian anti-atheistic apologists notwithstanding, to the best of my knowledge the Greek atheos originally was used in the sense of “without gods”—not necessarily without any at all, but without the right ones. It wasn’t until Christianity ran rampant that Christians used it in the sense of “denial of the Christian god” and since there can be only one, denial of them all.

In contemporary times, the simple truth is that there isn’t a universally accepted meaning of the term atheist. Some will use the term to stake out a nuanced philosophical position, others will add all the “us good theists vs. them evil atheists” baggage, and there are many shades in between. It’s a waste of time to debate whether we should accept the label unless the context is specified, too.

As an ancient Greek geek I’ll second what scenter said; the a- prefix means “without”.  But I guess my main objection to trying to come up with a more palatable replacement for ‘atheist’ is I HATE POLITICALLY CORRECT LABELS and this is an attempt to create one.

The history of politically correct labels is that they pile up; as each one accumulates more baggage it is left behind by the group to which it applies.  The baseline is moved and yet another giant distraction is born. 

I would offer examples but the linguistic victims of Political Correctness have become non-words.  I cannot even say them without completely derailing the discussion.  So instead I offer this speech by Doctor Martin Luther King for inspiration.  There may be an example within the speech somewhere.

Folks:  Just wanted to say that this has been one of the most engaging threads I’ve read in a long time, here or elsewhere.  Thanks, all, for the sheer amount of thought and self-reflection that went into this discussion.

One of the problems athiests cause for themselves is the failure to stand up and say “This is wrong!”.  I’ll pause here just to let you all shout “NO! I do say such things”.

Finished? Good. Yes we do- time and again drive by fundies here are asked questions that they have no answer to, other than to quote scripture.  However when Dawkins or Hitchins stands up and says “Look- that’s all a load of rubbish” they are attacked by other athiests, including articles in ‘Skeptic’ magazine.  We all feel that we have to treat these myths and chinese whispers of stories with respect- no matter how aggressive these idiocies are pushed.  British Media is fairly evolutionist, yet it still feels the need to put both sides of the story.  They wouldn’t do that for most looney ideas-fairies, time cube etc, but as soon as it makes it into a ‘religeon’ or broad following (e.g. wicca, crystals etc) suddenly it becomes somehow ‘true’, and practitioners especially ‘new age’ get on fluff chat shows.

To quote Dawkins, abridging Douglas Adams

If someone votes for a party you dont agree with, you’re free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody has an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it.  If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down, you are free to have an argument about it.  But on the other hand if somebody says, ‘I mustn’t move a light switch on a Saturday’, you have to say I respect that

The odd thing is, even as I am saying that I am thinking, ‘Is there an Orthodox Jew here who is going to be offended by the fact that I just said that?’ But I wouldn’t have thought, ‘Maybe there’s somebody from the left wing or somebody from the right wing or somebody who subscribes to this view or the other in economics’ when I was making the other points. I just think, ‘Fine, we have different opinions’. But the moment I say something that has something to do with somebody’s (I’m going to stick my neck out here and say irrational) beliefs, then we all become terribly protective and terribly defensive and say, ‘No, we don’t attack that; that’s an irrational belief but no, we respect it.’
Why should it be that it’s perfectly legitimate to support the Labour party or the Conservative party, Republicans or Democrats, this model of economics versus that, Macintosh instead of Windows — but to have an opinion about how the Universe began, about who created the Universe, no, that’s holy? What does that mean? Why do we ring-fence that for any other reason other than that we’ve just got used to doing so? There’s no other reason at all, it’s just one of those things that crept into being and once that loop gets going it’s very, very powerful. So, we are used to not challenging religious ideas, but it’s very interesting how much of a furore Richard creates when he does it! Everybody gets absolutely frantic about it because you’re not allowed to say these things. Yet when you look at it rationally there is no reason why those ideas shouldn’t be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow between us that they shouldn’t be.

(p184 “A Devil’s Chaplain”, Richard Dawkins- any errors are due to the OCR.)

Catching up on comments here and there ...

Duckhugger:  I like Atheism, I think there’s lots of power and force behind the word Atheist and it spares no punches in declaring your viewpoint… you don’t believe in God or the Supernatural…

Actually, that’s an interesting question:  does atheism imply, beyond disbelief in god(s), disbelief in all the supernatural?  If so, that would indicate that maybe another word would be more appropriate.

It may well be that’s a universal amongst atheists (assuming the label is that monolithic), but I suspect there are some folks who don’t believe in god(s) but believe in unprovable supernatural phenomena of some sort.  (And that’s beyond the issue of, say, non-theistic religions like Buddhism).

Duckhugger:  ... you live your life by science and testable/provable things (ignoring all the bullshit from the theist crowd).

A pity the label doesn’t mean you ignore all the bullshit from all crowds—that would be even more admirable.

I suspect, to some degree, that some atheists are less nuanced philosophers who have done a thorough rational analysis of all ideologies and belief systems around them as folks who are offended by the venality, irrationality, and hypocrisy of the dominant culture—“the Man” in 60s jargon—and have latched onto atheism as something with at least a passing rational basis and something that screams quite profoundly in the face of theists (and, more importantly, Christianists).  The same rationality, the same not going into the mainstream crowd, doesn’t always follow into other areas (or, worse, gets transformed into “I don’t slavishly accept the opinions of the mainstream crowd, I prefer the opinions of this minority crowd to slavishly accept").

I’m not singling atheists out here—that’s a human trait, and no different from Christians, or theists, who don’t acknowledge or address the irrationality of their positions or beliefs, or how they ought to extend logically into their daily lives and actions and other arenas of thought.

And, there are, of course, some atheists who are much more consistently rational than others. 

elwedriddsche:  In contemporary times, the simple truth is that there isn’t a universally accepted meaning of the term atheist. Some will use the term to stake out a nuanced philosophical position, others will add all the “us good theists vs. them evil atheists” baggage, and there are many shades in between.

Not to mention using it in the “us good atheists vs. them evil theists” baggage.

Last Hussar:  Yes we do- time and again drive by fundies here are asked questions that they have no answer to, other than to quote scripture.  However when Dawkins or Hitchins stands up and says “Look- that’s all a load of rubbish” they are attacked by other athiests, including articles in ‘Skeptic’ magazine.  We all feel that we have to treat these myths and chinese whispers of stories with respect- no matter how aggressive these idiocies are pushed.

For myself, I’m a lot more likely to respond positively and constructively to someone who says, “I understand you believe this, and your intentions deriving from that are good, but here’s an outcome of how you exercise that belief that has some seriously negative consequences in the world and on me, and does that seem consistent with what you want to do and be in the world?” than someone who says, “You’re a stupid idiot who believes in something as fictional as the Care Bears but with rape and torture thrown in.  In a rational world your kids would be taken from you and you’d be thrown in a zoo where intelligent people could point at you as the Neanderthal you are.”

I think that’s a better way for theists to engage with atheists as well as vice-versa.  I think it holds true in other areas of discourse as well.

I don’t understand how people are able to reach deep, believed, conclusions on an issue (religion) that we don’t know enough about to reach a conclusion on (both theists and atheists)

Surely closing our options is the last resort used for when we hit undeniable proof, otherwise, can we afford to not be prepared?

I don’t understand how people are able to reach deep, believed, conclusions on an issue (religion) that we don’t know enough about to reach a conclusion on (both theists and atheists)

Since there are practical consequences to epistemological questions, even in the absence of proof we make ‘educated guesses’.  My best guess, based on how I understand the universe, is that there is no overriding intelligence steering it all in the Christian sense.  The universe I see is pretty darn consistent with the position I hold.  If I’m wrong, I hope that intelligence forgives honest mistakes.

Assuming an omnibenevolent, omniscient deity (for the sake of argument), I would expect forgiveness of honest mistakes.  Heck, I expect forgiveness of dishonest mistakes, eventually.

***Dave, while I think I understand what your trying to say, my point was certain myths are seen as fair game for people to point out their incosistences- Virtually nobody takes David Icke seriously in his claim the Royal Family are alien lizards who are mind controlling us all, yet religeons, which are no more rational, are accorded respect.

DoF- Sorry, doesnt work like that. It doesn’t matter how good you are, the only way to enter the Kingdom of Heaven is to come to God, through his only begotten son Jesus Christ. Everyone who doesn’t belive, burns in hell for the rest of eternity.  Though as none of us will have bodies, and just be spirits I’m not sure how that works- the church appears to have overlooked that bit.

Though as none of us will have bodies, and just be spirits I’m not sure how that works- the church appears to have overlooked that bit.

Unfortunately, I believe there is some insinuation that we will have bodies, but I’m too lazy to look through the Bibble to find it.  I remember a bible study of Revelation that I attended where the pastor asserted that the saved and damned both will be given “perfected” bodies at the final resurrection.  He went on to say that the saved would enjoy their bodies, but the damned obviously would not.  Apparently these perfected bodies will be inconsumable but still suffer from burning (like Moses’ burning bush I guess...).  Anyway, he said this with such glee and zeal, I was taken aback even then, when I was deep in fundyism myself.

Of course, it’s all hogwash though.  Everybody knows that only those that embrace the FSM will be allowed to enjoy the fruits of paradise.

Last Hussar:  ***Dave, while I think I understand what your trying to say, my point was certain myths are seen as fair game for people to point out their incosistences- Virtually nobody takes David Icke seriously in his claim the Royal Family are alien lizards who are mind controlling us all, yet religeons, which are no more rational, are accorded respect.

I suppose part of that may be both longevity of the tradition and the number of folks who hold it.  Which is not, I grant you, a rational basis for determining the truth, but does give some indication of why it might be polite to give it a nod before laying into its particular failings and problems.

DoF- Sorry, doesnt work like that. It doesn’t matter how good you are, the only way to enter the Kingdom of Heaven is to come to God, through his only begotten son Jesus Christ. Everyone who doesn’t belive, burns in hell for the rest of eternity.

For what it’s worth, there are a number of ostensible Christians who would disagree with both halves of that proposition.  (There are also many, perhaps even most, who would agree with it, to be sure.)

Though as none of us will have bodies, and just be spirits I’m not sure how that works- the church appears to have overlooked that bit.

And, on the other hand, there are a number of Christians who believe in resurrection of the body as the gospel truth (and who have gotten quite vehement about it).  In fact, the Nicene Creed, one of the few nearly-universal statements of Christian dogma out there (embraced by the Catholics, Orthodox, and most Protestants) lists “resurrection of the body” as one of its tenets.

dof: If I’m wrong, I hope that intelligence forgives honest mistakes

That’s a safe bet so long as we’re dealing with a reasonable being.
There’s always the chance we’re not, but I suppose nobody would be able to please it or know how, and I’d sooner go to hell if it was that way
Given an eternity, I think it’d be reasonable eventually, but if it was a god-thing clearly something’s wrong somewhere for there to still be problems with human nature - the solutions aren’t instantaneous, and are painful, which both appear to be flaws. Also some feelings need not really exist…

Given an eternity, I think it’d be reasonable eventually, but if it was a god-thing clearly something’s wrong somewhere for there to still be problems with human nature - the solutions aren’t instantaneous, and are painful, which both appear to be flaws. Also some feelings need not really exist…

Uh...What?

Why would a good god allow bad feelings to exist at all? (boredom, pain, hunger, anger, loneliness, cravings, etc)
Something don’t fit with it all - he could’ve just made people 100% happy and never needing to do anything to maintain that happiness, but that isn’t the case-

even boredom, the need for activity, gets in the way of this. The needs for challenge, for meaning in life, for love, all have withdrawl symptons.
Human nature has a bad side that need not be allowed to exist by a good god.

(if he existed) Either he isn’t 100% good, and/or he isn’t 100% powerful. 0% powerful would be non-existent completely, but you could say that god exists in the imagination of theists, and so one individual’s model of him has some >0 influence over the mind that hosts him

In fact, the Nicene Creed, one of the few nearly-universal statements of Christian dogma out there (embraced by the Catholics, Orthodox, and most Protestants) lists “resurrection of the body” as one of its tenets

My mistake—that’s the Apostles Creed, not the Nicene Creed.  The Nicene Creed only refers to the “resurrection of the dead,” though that implies some sort of bodily return.

Bahamat writes…

Given an eternity, I think it’d be reasonable eventually…

You’d think that something eternal would have to have quite a bit of patience by now.

resurrection of the body” as one of its tenets.

I find the burial thing a bit creepy, so I want to be cremated

but does give some indication of why it might be polite to give it a nod before laying into its particular failings and problems.

Like Flat Earth

Bahamat

reasonable being

Perhaps you should read the old testament.

Les: You’d think that something eternal would have to have quite a bit of patience by now.

You would, if it is eternal and able to change

unless it had time-dependant needs (like us), that is

I don’t think cremation would be a problem.  Since carbon atoms migrate through the biosphere it’s likely each of us has within us some that were in the bodies of people who lived during the time of Christ.  At resurrection time, disposition of carbon atoms will be individually decided by Solomon, (after all, we have an eternity) If no agreement can be reached by two claimants, each carbon atom will be divided into one lithium and one helium atom with the helium recipient decided by coin toss.  Lithium toxicity won’t be a problem because there is no illness in heaven.  If there are three claimants, the carbon atoms will be divided into three helium-4 atoms to be shared equally. 

Alternatively, people may not receive their original carbon atoms; the atmosphere currently contains a great deal of fossil carbon which could be distributed among resurrectees.  It is all part of God’s plan.

That’ll keep ‘em busy for a while.

DOF - great argument for re-incarnation! Has anyone read those paragraphs that are circulating with wrods taht dnot hve th rgt spelng but our human minds fill in the blanks? Something like the sightings of Mary in odd shapes of contrasting colors. We seem to have an inherent need to fill in the blanks, and any old myth will do. Once we adopt a myth, though, it becomes proprietary and part of our culture. “My God’s better than your God!” So respecting a person’s particular religion is really the same as respecting their culture and world view, even though it may have some gaping holes in it. If you put them on the defensive by disrespecting them, how can you hope to engage in meaningful dialog that may even be beneficial? Has anyone considered adeist? The label deist worked pretty well for many of the founding fathers, how about adeist to define those of us who find a belief in any deity a little suspect? 

Last Hussar:  I find the burial thing a bit creepy, so I want to be cremated

The whole “resurrection of the body” thing is the reason why some Christian denominations disapprove of cremation (Catholicism most prominently among them, from my recollection).

For myself, part of me really doesn’t care (either I’ll have more important things to worry about, or won’t be in a position to worry about anything), part of me worries less about what they do with the body than jonesing for a big fancy tomb with weeping angels and lots of engraving. 

But, then, what’s the rational basis for being concerned over what happens to one’s body after death?

But, then, what’s the rational basis for being concerned over what happens to one’s body after death?

I know that. You know I know that, I know that you know....

Still creeps me out though, laying there, rotting.

Still creeps me out though, laying there, rotting.

There are compensations though.  Like sweet, sweet delicious braaaiiiiiinssss!!!!!!!